M
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
mercytruth
Guest
hamba2han,
Your reply is appreciated.
The action of the prophet and our father, Abraham was an act of faith that his Creator could raise up his son from the dead if need be.The sacrifice of God’s only Son, was even greater than the willingness of Abraham to sacrifice his only son.
As it says in the Injil, "God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whosoever believes in him, will not perish but have eternal life’. (This is a fulfillment of the prophetic reference to the action of Abraham offering up his own son, but also a fulfillment of the prophetic reference when Musa held up the serpent on the pole to the Israelites who had been bitten by serpents). Many of the stories of the prophets of the Tanakh are prophetic images of the sufferings of the future Messiah to come.
The covenant of Musa also provided atonement for sins through the offering of animal sacrifices. None of these could actually remove sins from their souls, they were prophetic references to the lamb of God who would actually take away the sins of the world. This is the new covenant that the Prophet Jeremiah speaks of in Jer. 31:31-34.
The Creator did not need to create another Son. God, His father raised Isa, Jesus from the dead, incorruptible three days after Passover. Most likely, on the same day of Passover week that the Israelites with Moses crossed the Red Sea 1,500 years previously.
hamba2han, Does the Quran speak of a way of atonement for sin?
Thankyou for responding,
and Salam Aliecham.
Your reply is appreciated.
The action of the prophet and our father, Abraham was an act of faith that his Creator could raise up his son from the dead if need be.The sacrifice of God’s only Son, was even greater than the willingness of Abraham to sacrifice his only son.
As it says in the Injil, "God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whosoever believes in him, will not perish but have eternal life’. (This is a fulfillment of the prophetic reference to the action of Abraham offering up his own son, but also a fulfillment of the prophetic reference when Musa held up the serpent on the pole to the Israelites who had been bitten by serpents). Many of the stories of the prophets of the Tanakh are prophetic images of the sufferings of the future Messiah to come.
The covenant of Musa also provided atonement for sins through the offering of animal sacrifices. None of these could actually remove sins from their souls, they were prophetic references to the lamb of God who would actually take away the sins of the world. This is the new covenant that the Prophet Jeremiah speaks of in Jer. 31:31-34.
The Creator did not need to create another Son. God, His father raised Isa, Jesus from the dead, incorruptible three days after Passover. Most likely, on the same day of Passover week that the Israelites with Moses crossed the Red Sea 1,500 years previously.
hamba2han, Does the Quran speak of a way of atonement for sin?
Thankyou for responding,
and Salam Aliecham.
H
hamba2han
Guest
**On the authority of Anas, who said: I heard the messenger of Allah say:hamba2han,
Your reply is appreciated.
The action of the prophet and our father, Abraham was an act of faith that his Creator could raise up his son from the dead if need be.The sacrifice of God’s only Son, was even greater than the willingness of Abraham to sacrifice his only son.
As it says in the Injil, "God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whosoever believes in him, will not perish but have eternal life’. (This is a fulfillment of the prophetic reference to the action of Abraham offering up his own son, but also a fulfillment of the prophetic reference when Musa held up the serpent on the pole to the Israelites who had been bitten by serpents). Many of the stories of the prophets of the Tanakh are prophetic images of the sufferings of the future Messiah to come.
The covenant of Musa also provided atonement for sins through the offering of animal sacrifices. None of these could actually remove sins from their souls, they were prophetic references to the lamb of God who would actually take away the sins of the world. This is the new covenant that the Prophet Jeremiah speaks of in Jer. 31:31-34.
The Creator did not need to create another Son. God, His father raised Isa, Jesus from the dead, incorruptible three days after Passover. Most likely, on the same day of Passover week that the Israelites with Moses crossed the Red Sea 1,500 years previously.
hamba2han, Does the Quran speak of a way of atonement for sin?
Thankyou for responding,
and Salam Aliecham.
Allah the Almighty has said: “O son of Adam, so long as you call upon Me and ask of Me, I shall forgive you for what you have done, and I shall not mind. O son of Adam, were your sins to reach the clouds of the sky and were you then to ask forgiveness of Me, I would forgive you. O son of Adam, were you to come to Me with sins nearly as great as the earth and were you then to face Me, ascribing no partner to Me, I would bring you forgiveness nearly as great as its.”
related by Al-Tirmithi, who said that it was a good and sound Hadith.
**
The above hadith is #42 of ‘Imam Nawawi’s Forty Hadiths’, which really is a comprehensive crash course on all of the major teachings of Islam.
And if you do wish to learn more and hear a video explanation of every one of this very, very well-known ahadith collection of Imam Nawawi, then I would suggest that you visit this website.
M
mercytruth
Guest
hamba2han,
Thank you, so the Hadiths are the only source on forgiveness of sins, I presume.
In the Tanakh and the N.T. we are told that 'without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins."
Prior to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross for our sins, the law of Moses had the Yom Kippur atonement sacrifices once a year for the sins of Israel.
One of these Yom Kippur sacrifices was called the ‘scapegoat.’ The High Priest would confess the sins of Israel over the scapegoat, and then it would be led into the wilderness with a crimson cloth tied to it. If the crimson cloth turned white, then that was an indication to the High Priest that the Yom Kippur blood sacrifices were accepted by God as an atonement for the sins of Israel.
From 30 AD until the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 AD (when the Temple sacrifices came to an end), this is what the Jewish Talmud says about the crimson cloth that was tied to the scapegoat during these forty years.
the Babylonian Talmud states:
"Our rabbis taught: During the last forty years before the destruction of the Temple the lot ‘For the Lord’] did not come up in the right hand; nor did the crimson-colored strap become white; nor did the western most light shine; and the doors of the Hekel [Temple] would open by themselves" (Soncino version, Yoma 39b).
www3.telus.net/public/kstam/en/temple/details/evidence.htm
What happened in 30 AD? Jesus Christ was the atoning perfect sacrifice, whose precious blood took away the sins of the world. There is no forgiveness of sins except through the Lord Jesus Christ.
I also have a question regarding the identity of the ‘Lord’ in Hadith #23.
Thank you, so the Hadiths are the only source on forgiveness of sins, I presume.
In the Tanakh and the N.T. we are told that 'without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins."
Prior to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross for our sins, the law of Moses had the Yom Kippur atonement sacrifices once a year for the sins of Israel.
One of these Yom Kippur sacrifices was called the ‘scapegoat.’ The High Priest would confess the sins of Israel over the scapegoat, and then it would be led into the wilderness with a crimson cloth tied to it. If the crimson cloth turned white, then that was an indication to the High Priest that the Yom Kippur blood sacrifices were accepted by God as an atonement for the sins of Israel.
From 30 AD until the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 AD (when the Temple sacrifices came to an end), this is what the Jewish Talmud says about the crimson cloth that was tied to the scapegoat during these forty years.
the Babylonian Talmud states:
"Our rabbis taught: During the last forty years before the destruction of the Temple the lot ‘For the Lord’] did not come up in the right hand; nor did the crimson-colored strap become white; nor did the western most light shine; and the doors of the Hekel [Temple] would open by themselves" (Soncino version, Yoma 39b).
www3.telus.net/public/kstam/en/temple/details/evidence.htm
What happened in 30 AD? Jesus Christ was the atoning perfect sacrifice, whose precious blood took away the sins of the world. There is no forgiveness of sins except through the Lord Jesus Christ.
I also have a question regarding the identity of the ‘Lord’ in Hadith #23.
meltzerboy
New member
The vicarious sacrificial atonement in the Hebrew Bible, as in Ezekiel, when involving HUMANS (not animals, as was the scapegoat), and in particular a Tzadik (holy man), even in those RARE cases when such atonement was applicable to BOTH intentional and non-intentional sin, NEVER required the actual death of the sufferer, which was to be avoided. Further, this kind of sacrificial atonement–whether human or animal–was meant to tip the balance in favor of the sinner rather than serve as the primary means of atonement. The primary means of atonement on Yom Kippur, as well as on other occasions, was always INDIVIDUAL atonement by way of prayer and charitable acts of kindness, as well as seeking forgiveness from the party whom one may have wronged.hamba2han,
Thank you, so the Hadiths are the only source on forgiveness of sins, I presume.
In the Tanakh and the N.T. we are told that 'without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins."
Prior to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross for our sins, the law of Moses had the Yom Kippur atonement sacrifices once a year for the sins of Israel.
One of these Yom Kippur sacrifices was called the ‘scapegoat.’ The High Priest would confess the sins of Israel over the scapegoat, and then it would be led into the wilderness with a crimson cloth tied to it. If the crimson cloth turned white, then that was an indication to the High Priest that the Yom Kippur blood sacrifices were accepted by God as an atonement for the sins of Israel.
From 30 AD until the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 AD (when the Temple sacrifices came to an end), this is what the Jewish Talmud says about the crimson cloth that was tied to the scapegoat during these forty years.
the Babylonian Talmud states:
"Our rabbis taught: During the last forty years before the destruction of the Temple the lot ‘For the Lord’] did not come up in the right hand; nor did the crimson-colored strap become white; nor did the western most light shine; and the doors of the Hekel [Temple] would open by themselves" (Soncino version, Yoma 39b).
www3.telus.net/public/kstam/en/temple/details/evidence.htm
What happened in 30 AD? Jesus Christ was the atoning perfect sacrifice, whose precious blood took away the sins of the world. There is no forgiveness of sins except through the Lord Jesus Christ.
I also have a question regarding the identity of the ‘Lord’ in Hadith #23.
M
mercytruth
Guest
Meltzerboy,
Yes, what you say is true regarding Rabbinic Judaism since the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.
’The primary means of atonement on Yom Kippur, as well as on other occasions, was always INDIVIDUAL atonement by way of prayer and charitable acts of kindness, as well as seeking forgiveness from the party whom one may have wronged.’
The Temple animal sacrifices prior to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD did provide some sort of atonment, especially the two goats of Yom Kippur. The concept of an innocent animal suffering for the guilt of human beings seems very primitive and supersticious.
The concept within the Torah and Tanakh of the relationship between ‘blood’ and ‘soul’ is not readily understood. Yet, there seems to be a direct inter relationship between the blood and the soul of a living being. So the expression, ‘innocent blood’ is another way of saying, ‘innocent soul’. In the Christian faith, the only innocent soul to walk this earth was the Messiah Y’shua.
There are medical documentations of people who have received heart transplants, actually changing into the personalitiy of the donor. Though I would not directly associate the human organ of the heart with the soul of a human being, I think there is some sort of association between the two. This is the best example that I can give of the atonement of Jesus Christ in the realm of the change that occurs within the believer. We do not receive an actual transplant of the heart of Jesus Christ, but we receive the Spirit of his innocent soul.
Shalom
Yes, what you say is true regarding Rabbinic Judaism since the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.
’The primary means of atonement on Yom Kippur, as well as on other occasions, was always INDIVIDUAL atonement by way of prayer and charitable acts of kindness, as well as seeking forgiveness from the party whom one may have wronged.’
The Temple animal sacrifices prior to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD did provide some sort of atonment, especially the two goats of Yom Kippur. The concept of an innocent animal suffering for the guilt of human beings seems very primitive and supersticious.
The concept within the Torah and Tanakh of the relationship between ‘blood’ and ‘soul’ is not readily understood. Yet, there seems to be a direct inter relationship between the blood and the soul of a living being. So the expression, ‘innocent blood’ is another way of saying, ‘innocent soul’. In the Christian faith, the only innocent soul to walk this earth was the Messiah Y’shua.
There are medical documentations of people who have received heart transplants, actually changing into the personalitiy of the donor. Though I would not directly associate the human organ of the heart with the soul of a human being, I think there is some sort of association between the two. This is the best example that I can give of the atonement of Jesus Christ in the realm of the change that occurs within the believer. We do not receive an actual transplant of the heart of Jesus Christ, but we receive the Spirit of his innocent soul.
Shalom
M
mercytruth
Guest
Here is a site that attempts to explain it scientifically:
thestar.com/news/world/article/1157137–can-a-heart-transplant-change-your-personality?bn=1
Here are some case studies of personality transformation:
paulpearsall.com/info/press/3.html
There is more on this subject, but that is enough for now.
thestar.com/news/world/article/1157137–can-a-heart-transplant-change-your-personality?bn=1
Here are some case studies of personality transformation:
paulpearsall.com/info/press/3.html
There is more on this subject, but that is enough for now.
meltzerboy
New member
A final word from me on this, since we’re really off topic. The Written Law (Torah) and the Oral Law (Talmud) both affirm that no animal blood sacrifice is valid without prayer and acts of charity. Rabbinic Judaism does not depart from Ancient Judaism on this point. Moreover, vicarious blood sacrifice was always regarded as secondary to prayer and good deeds, and Torah confirms this. A sharp distinction was also drawn between animal sacrifice and human sacrifice, the latter forbidden except for the suffering (but not death) of holy men to supplement individual atonement. The fact that the double scapegoat was a Hebrew practice on Yom Kippur does not mean this was the only or the major form of atonement. However, some in the Orthodox Jewish community say that animal sacrifice is still valid and wish the practice to be resumed upon the building of the Third Temple.Meltzerboy,
Yes, what you say is true regarding Rabbinic Judaism since the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.
’The primary means of atonement on Yom Kippur, as well as on other occasions, was always INDIVIDUAL atonement by way of prayer and charitable acts of kindness, as well as seeking forgiveness from the party whom one may have wronged.’
The Temple animal sacrifices prior to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD did provide some sort of atonment, especially the two goats of Yom Kippur. The concept of an innocent animal suffering for the guilt of human beings seems very primitive and supersticious.
The concept within the Torah and Tanakh of the relationship between ‘blood’ and ‘soul’ is not readily understood. Yet, there seems to be a direct inter relationship between the blood and the soul of a living being. So the expression, ‘innocent blood’ is another way of saying, ‘innocent soul’. In the Christian faith, the only innocent soul to walk this earth was the Messiah Y’shua.
There are medical documentations of people who have received heart transplants, actually changing into the personalitiy of the donor. Though I would not directly associate the human organ of the heart with the soul of a human being, I think there is some sort of association between the two. This is the best example that I can give of the atonement of Jesus Christ in the realm of the change that occurs within the believer. We do not receive an actual transplant of the heart of Jesus Christ, but we receive the Spirit of his innocent soul.
Shalom
M
mercytruth
Guest
Meltzerboy,
Basically, I would not disagree with your reply. The blood sacrifices of the Torah required a High Priest and the accompanying prayers.
Yes, it would be crass to think that one’s own life could be justified in the eyes of God simply, and only by the blood atonement of animal sacrifices.
Yes, the Tanakh makes it very plain that human sacrifice was forbidden, and King Manasseh was severely judged for doing just that (2 Kings 21:6,16).
Historically, we can find the development of prayer and charity as a substitute for the atoning sacrifices within Rabbinic Judaism, otherwise as you said, Orthodox Judaism would not be looking for the reinstitution of blood sacrifices.
Even, Christian tradition elevates prayer and charity as a means for forgiveness. “Charity covers a multitude of sins” is an often repeated principle in Christian tradition. The difference between the Christian faith and the Judaic faith,( including Islam) is that prayer and good deeds never were a complete substitution for blood atonement.
Just one example from Christian tradition. The very first reference to blood in the Torah is found in the story of Cain and Abel. God says to Cain, "the voice of your brother’s blood cries out to me from the earth". The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews says, "And to Jesus the mediator of the new testament, and to the sprinkling of blood which speaks better than that of Abel."
We know that blood does not have a voice to speak with. The Torah though says, ‘that the ‘soul’, nephesh is the blood thereof’'
Abel’s soul cried for vengeance from God, the soul of Jesus mediates for mercy from God.
So, it seems to be a paradox, and a contradiction that God would allow his Messiah to be an atoning sacrifice for sin on Mt. Moriah. It is also a paradox that God would ask Abraham to offer up his only son on Mt. Moriah
Basically, I would not disagree with your reply. The blood sacrifices of the Torah required a High Priest and the accompanying prayers.
Yes, it would be crass to think that one’s own life could be justified in the eyes of God simply, and only by the blood atonement of animal sacrifices.
Yes, the Tanakh makes it very plain that human sacrifice was forbidden, and King Manasseh was severely judged for doing just that (2 Kings 21:6,16).
Historically, we can find the development of prayer and charity as a substitute for the atoning sacrifices within Rabbinic Judaism, otherwise as you said, Orthodox Judaism would not be looking for the reinstitution of blood sacrifices.
Even, Christian tradition elevates prayer and charity as a means for forgiveness. “Charity covers a multitude of sins” is an often repeated principle in Christian tradition. The difference between the Christian faith and the Judaic faith,( including Islam) is that prayer and good deeds never were a complete substitution for blood atonement.
Just one example from Christian tradition. The very first reference to blood in the Torah is found in the story of Cain and Abel. God says to Cain, "the voice of your brother’s blood cries out to me from the earth". The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews says, "And to Jesus the mediator of the new testament, and to the sprinkling of blood which speaks better than that of Abel."
We know that blood does not have a voice to speak with. The Torah though says, ‘that the ‘soul’, nephesh is the blood thereof’'
Abel’s soul cried for vengeance from God, the soul of Jesus mediates for mercy from God.
So, it seems to be a paradox, and a contradiction that God would allow his Messiah to be an atoning sacrifice for sin on Mt. Moriah. It is also a paradox that God would ask Abraham to offer up his only son on Mt. Moriah
M
mercytruth
Guest
From 30 AD until the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 AD (when the Temple sacrifices came to an end), this is what the Jewish Talmud says about the crimson cloth that was tied to the scapegoat during these forty years.
the Babylonian Talmud states:
"Our rabbis taught: During the last forty years before the destruction of the Temple the lot ‘For the Lord’] did not come up in the right hand; nor did the crimson-colored strap become white; nor did the western most light shine; and the doors of the Hekel [Temple] would open by themselves" (Soncino version, Yoma 39b).
www3.telus.net/public/kstam/en/temple/details/evidence.htm
What happened in 30 AD? Jesus Christ was the atoning perfect sacrifice, whose precious blood took away the sins of the world. There is no forgiveness of sins except through the Lord Jesus Christ.
the Babylonian Talmud states:
"Our rabbis taught: During the last forty years before the destruction of the Temple the lot ‘For the Lord’] did not come up in the right hand; nor did the crimson-colored strap become white; nor did the western most light shine; and the doors of the Hekel [Temple] would open by themselves" (Soncino version, Yoma 39b).
www3.telus.net/public/kstam/en/temple/details/evidence.htm
What happened in 30 AD? Jesus Christ was the atoning perfect sacrifice, whose precious blood took away the sins of the world. There is no forgiveness of sins except through the Lord Jesus Christ.
M
mercytruth
Guest
hamba2han,
From 30 AD until the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 AD (when the Temple sacrifices came to an end), this is what the Jewish Talmud says about the crimson cloth that was tied to the scapegoat during these forty years.
the Babylonian Talmud states:
"Our rabbis taught: During the last forty years before the destruction of the Temple the lot ‘For the Lord’] did not come up in the right hand; nor did the crimson-colored strap become white; nor did the western most light shine; and the doors of the Hekel [Temple] would open by themselves" (Soncino version, Yoma 39b).
www3.telus.net/public/kstam/en/temple/details/evidence.htm
What happened in 30 AD? Jesus Christ was the atoning perfect sacrifice, whose precious blood took away the sins of the world. There is no forgiveness of sins except through the Lord Jesus Christ.
I am resurrecting this post of mine as a humble apology to anyone of the Jewish faith for quoting the Babylonian Talmud out of context. (As Meltzerboy has clarified in another post regarding this portion of the Talmud in relation to the crimson strap as having **not **turned miraculously white previous to the crucifixion of our Lord Jesus Christ.)
If one would read Yoma 39a, the page prior to Yoma39b, one would learn that such non-occurrences happened many times before 30 AD, that is, before the crucifixion of our Lord. Especially, after the death of the High Priest Shimon HaTzaddik centuries earlier. I am posting this website article as reference in refuting the original statement that I had erroneously made.
outreachjudaism.org/articles/red-ribbon.html
We will never come to the truth, nor to peace with one another if we can not apologize for our misstatements and misrepresentations of each other’s faith.
S
SonofAdam
Guest
As salamu 'alaykum,Ibn 'Abbas is one of the early community, but Bukhari is not even born until after 800 CE, and the collection of hadith takes place over 200 years after the death of the Prophet(pbuh).
This is also what some christian missionaries falsely claim. We are very careful on where we take our religion from.
See a refutation of this claim here
unveiling-christianity.org/2010/09/28/the-new-testament-greek-manuscripts/
and here is a quote from Shaykh GF Haddad elsewhere:
GF Haddad mentions
“Among the extant manuscripts of the numerous hadith collections compiled in the first Hijri century are
Abd Allah ibn Amr ibn al-As' (d. 63) al-Sahifat al-Sadiqa, originally containing about 1,000 hadiths of which 500 reached us, copied down by Abd Allah directly from the Prophet MHMD and transmitted to us by his great-grandson Amr ibn Shuayb (d. 118); Hammam ibn Munabbih’s (d. 101 or 131) al-Sahifa al-Sahiha which has reached us complete in two manuscripts containing 138 hadiths narrated by Hammam from Abu Hurayra (d. 60) from the Prophet MHMD ; and, from the second Hijri century, the massive, partly-recovered Musannaf of the Yemenite hadith Master Abd al-Razzaq ibn Hammam ibn Nafi al-Sanani (d. 211), which includes the compendium of his teacher Mamar ibn Rashid al-Azdi (d. 151 or 154) * both principal sources of the Two Arch-Imams al-Bukhari and Muslim in their Sahihs * and is, with its 21,000+ narrations, the largest authentic early source of hadith extant.”Augustine3 says
I say“My goodness…”
precisely
N
Nabooru
Guest
I do not believe Muhammad was a prophet, or that the Quran is a divine revelation of any sort. I can understand the Scriptures being written by the divinely inspired prophets and apostles, but the Quran does not stand up to the scrutiny when it claims to be the actual speech of God and/or his angels.
Personally, I feel the verse in question is just another condemnation of those communities that Muhammad was aware of, and did not convert to his religion, instead maintaining their own. It seems to be a common theme in the Quran that anyone who fails to accept Muhammad and his religion should be punished, now and forever, but also an awareness that it’s hard to justify that position when those unbelievers are not actively hurting you. That’s how you’ll find one verse instructing to slay unbelievers next to another one commanding to respect them if they submit to your dominion and show you no harm.
Personally, I feel the verse in question is just another condemnation of those communities that Muhammad was aware of, and did not convert to his religion, instead maintaining their own. It seems to be a common theme in the Quran that anyone who fails to accept Muhammad and his religion should be punished, now and forever, but also an awareness that it’s hard to justify that position when those unbelievers are not actively hurting you. That’s how you’ll find one verse instructing to slay unbelievers next to another one commanding to respect them if they submit to your dominion and show you no harm.
M
MartinJordan
Guest
Hi Son of Adam, can you point to me which Christian missionaries? Hope you can get that info for me.As salamu 'alaykum,
This is also what some christian missionaries falsely claim. We are very careful on where we take our religion from.
See a refutation of this claim here
unveiling-christianity.org/2010/09/28/the-new-testament-greek-manuscripts/
and here is a quote from Shaykh GF Haddad elsewhere:
GF Haddad mentions
“Among the extant manuscripts of the numerous hadith collections compiled in the first Hijri century areAbd Allah ibnAmr ibn al-As' (d. 63) al-Sahifat al-Sadiqa, originally containing about 1,000 hadiths of which 500 reached us, copied down byAbd Allah directly from the Prophet MHMD and transmitted to us by his great-grandsonAmr ibn Shuayb (d. 118); Hammam ibn Munabbih’s (d. 101 or 131) al-Sahifa al-Sahiha which has reached us complete in two manuscripts containing 138 hadiths narrated by Hammam from Abu Hurayra (d. 60) from the Prophet MHMD ; and, from the second Hijri century, the massive, partly-recovered Musannaf of the Yemenite hadith MasterAbd al-Razzaq ibn Hammam ibn Nafial-Sanani (d. 211), which includes the compendium of his teacher Mamar ibn Rashid al-Azdi (d. 151 or 154) * both principal sources of the Two Arch-Imams al-Bukhari and Muslim in their Sahihs * and is, with its 21,000+ narrations, the largest authentic early source of hadith extant.”
Augustine3 says
I say
precisely
MJ
- Status
- Not open for further replies.